- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 22:44:40 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26332 --- Comment #42 from Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com> --- (In reply to Joe Steele from comment #41) > (In reply to Ryan Sleevi from comment #39) > > I think you're conflating two things. > > What are the two things you think I am conflating? "Rogue" CDMs and rogue intermediates. I'm not sure I agree with the classification that there even is a "rogue CDM" - it's clear from the CDMs already in existence that certain privacy properties (or lack) are by-design of the CDM. Ergo, they're behaving exactly as that CDM should - but in a way that is detrimental to the user. The issue is that any intermediate can, for unprotected traffic, inject script to use that CDM and report to an arbitrary party those results. That's just how the web works. Even if you normatively required prompting, any site which the user had accepted (and I think we know what some of those sites those will, in practice, be, given their representatives participation in the spec and this WG) can be intercepted and used to track. And it's not just when a UA visits one of these video sites - through the power of the web (read iframe and related), an 'attacker' (hostile intermediate) can inject the compromised video site into any site of the attackers choosing. This was David's point [1] from the original report. None of this has anything to do with "rogue CDMs". It's an inherent property of the spec, and has nothing to do with "preventing rogue CDMs", but fundamentally about protecting users. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 19 August 2014 22:44:42 UTC